>So, let's start. Yes, let's. I think we should look into aquiring/merging with the openbeos.sourceforge.net space and seeding the source tree with Bruno G. Albuquerque and Nathan Whitehorn's Mail Daemon Replacement, if they're willing. That'd be one server down, and a bunch more plus a kernel to go. ;) >So, to be successful we need to keep in mind a few things: > >* we need binary compatibility from release to release, so companys > can produce and sell closes source, this means binary only programs > and device drivers! Agreed. >* we better add a compatiblity layer, so we can run all current BeOS programs > >* it may be a wise decision to create a compiler independent binary format, > so we don't need to break compatiblity if the gcc compiler breaks compatibility , > since we can't break our compatiblity If we can firmly establish the project as a true replacement for R5 with a future ahead of it, we can probably coax the community to move to gcc 3.x. If nothing else, we can do what Be wouldn't do and version the libs. Or even go with the good ideas you have here -- just later. Getting up and running as quickly as possible should be our foremost concern, otherwise the userbase and community might fade out on us. Strike while the iron is hot and all that. =) >* i think we should use the beos kernel approach, this means independent modules > which are all loaded at boot time, and those who find hardware keep loaded. > You really don't want a single large kernel you need to constantly recompile! I think we're talking about basically reimplementing the OS, so this is probably a given. If nothing else, this architecture is definitely one of the cooler aspects of BeOS. >Some legal things: [stuff re. GPL] As much as I admire what the GNU folks have accomplished, I find the, uh, "enthusiasm" of their userbase a bit hard to take at times. I'm in favor of a more liberal license -- Mozilla, BSD, maybe OpenTracker; something along those lines. e Data is not information, and information is not knowledge: knowledge is not understanding, and understanding is not wisdom. - Philip Adams